High Court dismissed Criminal Original Petitions challenging the trial court's order limiting document production in a cheque bounce case. The Court held that documents need only cover the relevant period and no interference was warranted.
Petitions dismissed with Rs. 2,500 costs each to LS Agencies; Fast Track Court directed to dispose cases within 3 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2016
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.Nos.1829 & 1830 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.913, 914, 2039 & 2040 of 2016
N.Rajani .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.1829 of 2016 V.Nagarajan .. Petitioner in Crl.o.P.No.1830 of 2016
Vs.
Gopkumaran Nair Prop.Poineer Ine Rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent P.Sundaresan, Accounts Manager .. Respondent in both cases.
Prayer in both cases: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 07.01.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.4822 and 4823 of 2015 in C.C.Nos.158 & 159 of 2015 passed by the Fast Track Court at Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balasinghramanujam
For Respondent : Mr.N.D.Bahety
These petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2016 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.4822 and 4823 of 2015 in C.C.Nos.158 & 159 of 2015, on the file of the learned Fast track Judge, Alandur for dissolving the portion.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who are the accused in C.C.Nos.158 & 159 of 2015 have filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents to prove their defence, wherein the trial court has ordered only the rental and lease agreements, rental advance amount, cheque particulars, account books and
bank accounts pertaining to the relevant period alone has been allowed. Against which, they have come forward with these petitions. He further submitted that the respondent/complainant, is a tenant under the petitioners/accused from the year 2007 onwards. Even though, the cheque has been issued in the year 2015 for return of advance amount, the petitioners prays for production of other documents also for proving their defence. Hence he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.
3.Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that it is no doubt, the respondent is a tenant under the petitioners from 2007 to 2014. When the respondent vacated the premises, for return of advance amount, cheque has been issued and when the same has been presented for encasement, that has been returned as “insufficient fund”. Hence, statutory notice under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instrument Act has been issued by the respondent, which was received by the petitioners but they have not complied with the demand. Therefore, the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioners, for which, the petitioners have sent a reply stating that the cheque has been issued as a security. But the Trial Court has rightly held that only the documents pertaining to the relevant period is necessary. So, the Trial court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these petitions.
4.Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.
5.The tenancy relationship between the petitioners and the respondent is not disputed. After partly allowing the petitions, the respondent was recalled and examined on 20.01.2016 and on the basis of the order passed by the trial Court, the documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D.5. Admittedly, the cheque has been issued in the year 2015, when the tenant/respondent had vacated the premises. According to the petitioners/accused, the cheque has been issued only as a security. It is unable to understand by this Court that once the respondent/tenant had vacated the premises, why the petitioners/landlord have given a cheque as security. In such circumstances, I am of the view that only with view to drag on the proceedings, the petitions have been filed. The Trial Court has partly allowed the petitions stating that the documents pertaining to the relevant period has to be marked. Therefore, the trial court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. It is the duty of the petitioners/accused to prove that the cheque has been issued for security purpose. Hence, I do not find any reason
to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. Therefore, the Criminal original Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
6.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) in each petitions to the Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras. Further, the learned Fast Track Judge, Alandur, is directed to dispose of C.C.Nos.158 & 159 of 2015 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
kkd Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Fast Track Court, Alandur.
+ 2 ccs to Mr.A.Balasinghramanujam, Advocate Sr 15216, 15217
+ 1 cc to Mr.N.D.Bahety, Advocate Sr 15685
KR/24/3/16
Crl.O.P.Nos.1829 & 1830 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.913, 914, 2039 & 2040 of 2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order limiting the production of documents to those pertaining to the relevant period in a cheque dishonour case.
Whether the petitioners satisfied the requirements under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the order dissolving the portion.
Whether the cheque was issued for security purposes or as payment for refund of advance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N. Rajani
V. Nagarajan
Gopkumaran Nair Prop. Poineer Ine
R. Mala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
